WASHINGTON—In response to requests by the Chicago Sun-Times—some longstanding-- the Obama campaign on Saturday released names of Obama’s presidential National Finance Committee; U.S. Senate finance committee and interns who have worked in the Obama U.S. Senate office. His 2004 senate committee included Tony Rezko--on trial on public corruption charges-- and his wife, Rita.

While Obama’s campaign has balked for months in making public the names of the National Finance Committee members, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said the information would be disclosed during a meeting with the Chicago Sun-Times on March 14. Obama is making government transparency and ethics a centerpiece of his White House bid.
Click below for lists....

From a transcript of the session with the Sun-Times:

“Will you release to us a member of your campaign finance committee for the U.S. Senate?

A: I'm happy to release that.

Q: And the nation campaign finance committee for president?

A: Yes.”

At issue is not who gives—that eventually is disclosed under federal law—but who is helping Obama by hosting an event. That information does not have to be made public.

Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate finance committee contains the names of a number of Chicago based Democrats who have been long-time major donors and fund-raisers —and Tony Rezko and his wife, Rita. Rezko, on trial in a Chicago courtroom on corruption charges. On March 14, Obama said Rezko had raised about $250,000 for Obama—for his state senate, House and U.S. Senate runs.

For his 2008 presidential run, Obama does release the names of his best “bundlers” –those who raise between $50,000 and at least $200,000. Bundlers are people who tap into their own extensive personal networks to raise money for a candidate and in return are supposed to get recognition for their efforts from the campaigns.

But the Obama campaign has carved from these ranks of elite fund-raisers a National Finance Committee, who are deemed to have potential to raise money for Obama over the long haul.

Members of Obama’s NFC have been invited to special briefings with Obama and his advisors, were given priority in getting into Oprah Winfrey’s fund-raiser at her home near Santa Barbara, Calif. and have been encouraged to travel to primary and caucus states to volunteer knocking on doors and at phonebanks.

Categories:

20 Comments

You do seem to have and do work on hard on questioning Barack Obama, I think a lot of us are more interested in the Tax Returns of Hillary Rodham Clinton, perhaps you could put in the same energy or even more as she does not seem to want to reveal them!!

Sold us a bill of goods Barack and Michelle did. Can the DNC get their money back?
We SHOULD have been informed as to whom was funding him because
HE SAID HE ACCEPTED NO MONEY FROM LOBBYISTS AT A TIME WHEN THE ONLY CANDIDATES WHO COULD SAY THAT WERE KUCINICH AND EDWARDS.
I believe he defrauded voters in early primary states in that regard.
We should also have been informed that Rezko was a key funder and organizer before the trial blew up in our faces.
I believe he defrauded voters in early primary states in that regard.
What can we do about it now? Sit back and shut up apparently, lest we be called 'racist'. This is disgusting.

Hillary's Recount of Tuzla -- her "Tale of Bosnian Sniper Fire" is outrageous and a breach of the Public Trust or should be. This goes right to the Heart of her Credibility, and it is found wanting and also engenders a loss of confidence. The Baltimore Sun calls it a "whopper." The Washington Post states: "Four Pinocchios!" However, main stream media, CNN, MSNBC and others are relatively quiet on this matter when in essence this is a big deal and the True Betrayal. To willfully mislead the public for gain is wrong and should have no place in our politics today and certainly should not be rewarded by a vote of confidence and our votes. This is an egregious matter and very disingenuous, at the least. Politicians should not be able to get away with such outrageous distortions lies and exaggeration. They should be held to a Higher Standard than the rest of us if they want to hold the highest office in the land and lead America to a better standard of life. This is what is wrong with our politics of today, a "do and say" anything that is allowed to be acceptable when on the otherhand, we raise our children not to lie and steal and cheat.

In trying to make Barack look "unelectable", Camp Clinton has adopted a "say and do" anything agenda, "throw the kitchen sink" and the basement too, which is supposed to make them look more "electable" by these negative tactics. But what she has accomplished is the question, How are we to believe anything that comes out of Hillary and Camp Clinton's mouth?

This race could have been over in Texas, but the main stream media has been silent on telling you that if not for the 100,00 Republicans who voted for Hillary edged on by Rush Limbaugh, Barack would have won Texas. The Republicans also voted for her in Ohio and gave her a substantial margin. This was done not because they have a particular liking for Hillary, but because they want to prolong the race between the Democrats to make John McCain look good, and because they think they can beat Hillary in the Fall. Just watch Pat Buchannan and Joe Scarborough's disingenuous Spin and you will see all their talking points. They are no friend to America or to the Democratic Party.

Members of Obama’s NFC have been invited to special briefings with Obama and his advisors...

Speaking as one of Obama's constituents, I am curious as to how much money I would have to donate in order to receive the time of day from one of his advisors.

While it is unlikely that sitting members of one office will ever be prohibited from running for a different office, perhaps they can be asked to sign a promissory note that they will not do so. (Stop laughing.)

Where is that other well known Democrat mover and shaker Norman HSU? Did he take his fund raising skills over to the Clinton's Camp?
What about Marc Rich? Did he spend all his money on a Clinton Pardon/Library Donation?
The sun Times is too afraid of the Clintons to DEMAND release of the non-redacted Clinton TTax Returns.
The Sun Times is too compromised by the Clinton's that the Sun Times will not Demand a complete accounting of the Clinton Presidential Libary and Massage Parlor Donor Lists.
What causes the Editorial board of the Sun Times to tremble like a beat dog when it comes to investgating the Clinton's?

So Obama is a typical politician who takes money from lobbyists and special interestes groups. No kidding! Since Obama has been caught in 3 or 4 lies in the past three weeks, including in his phony speech on race last week, I hope no one takes his calls for transparency serious anymore. No on to two other topics. Yesterday on Chris Wallace's show on Fox, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell rattled off loyal blue states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania where Obama is even or slightly behind McCain in the polls. While Hillary is far ahead of McCain in those states. He also said Obama is far behind McCain In Ohio & Florida, while Hillary is even with McCain in those states. His point was that if Obama has trouble winning those traditionally blue northern states, then McCain wins in a walk vs. Obama. So please you naive democrats, nominate the Jeremiah Wright supporting Obama. To Julie Mack, the term you are looking for as it pertains to the honorable Rushton Limbaugh is "Operation Chaos". This movement led by Rush is a grass roots movement where republicans vote for Hillary to help her catch up so the liberals have a chaotic, brokered convention in Denver in August. In fact, I read last week that because Pennsylvania is a closed primary, some republicans are re-registering with the state as democrats so they can vote for Hillary.

I too would like to know when Hillary Clinton will questioned about her tax returns, her specific 35 years of experience, Whitewater which was never fully explained, the commodities deal, her brothers selling pardons and a host of other things that could easily take up another 80 minutes of the editorial board's time.

This - I don't get the point. We know the knew Rezco, we know he raised money, and he did it for just about every other politician in Illinois, Republican and Democrat - so what's your point exactly.

Julie--tell the gang at Obama HQ that come the fall, unless the Obamites keep pressing it, nobody will care less what she said about Bosnia, but they will care about:
*Rezko meetings
*U.S. of KKK A
*God **** America
*Michelle's 200 G raise for her Daley post at U of C
*the misrepresentation of the earmarks (formerly pork barrel)for U of C and not U of I at C
*the pre-purchase Rezko mansion walk
*'Clean coal' votes
*voting for Iraq funding when you say you're against the war
*not policing nuke releases from Exelen (that's why bonnie raitt and jackson browne played a benefit for Edwards--a real populist)
*ducking into an suv and dodging Carol Marin on Rezko contributions to his campaign for nearly a year with total impunity from the 'news media'
*bullying people who disagree with the Obamites in the slightest
*throwing grandma who helped with homework, meals, love, care, attention under the bus when it's convenient to highlight a 'speech' that should have been a sound bite to defend his attendance at a we hate you know who church
*Rezko trashing over 100 plus million dollars' worth of housing for the poor in his very own state district!
Keep trashing Hilary, Julie. It's gonna make us give her more money so she can compete with all that yummy Rezko money.

Hilary's tax returns bother you? Why not the rest of Obama's earmarks? Or at least an accurate and thorough accounting of same.
Heck, I'd like to see every day of HIS schedule for the past 10 years or so.
And, where exactly is he right NOW? With whom is he meeting? Why wasn't the media invited?

I wonder how it heels for an investigative reporter these days to go to all the trouble to expose a truth, only to have the national media ignore it and instead fill the time and column space with nonsense mudslinging between politcal hacks. I can hardly remember the last time any TV channel broadcast candidate Hillary Clinton saying anything. Has she catapulted that far ahed in public opinion polls that a blackout has to be declared? Instead, we have to settle for the likes of James Carville and Bill Richardson engaging in cock fights. To say nothing of Barack Obama's Gettysburg Address broadcast live on at least three cable channels, then replayed three times a day for a week on CSPAN, which seems to be operating under the impression that his rival has dropped out of the race. When the Chicago prress reported on the revelation in the Rezko trial that Obama helped craft legislation to rework the Illinois Health Planning Facilities Board to steer contracts to Rezko, the national media didn't breathe a word about it. But we are hearing all day today about how Hillary Clinton fold a fib about a long ago trip to Bosnia. Where's the sense of proportion here? It appears we've passed through the looking glass into the Wonderland of George Orwell. For a look at what might be behind all this manipulation, I've posted an article at thecityedition.com. Click on my screen name for a direct link.

Remus--I don't get your point about the Sun Times ownership and the Clintons.
?
Only Edwards had a media reform plank in his platform.
Not Barack.
Not Hilary.
Certainly not John.
Heaven help us all. Only, I think Rev. Wright's right--help ain't comin' til we change a few things.
I mean really change things--like vote to defund this oil war, stop the spying on you and me, get national health CARE not insurance.
When do you think all that will happen? Which one of the 3 we're left with will do that?
Maybe I should write in Rev. Wright as prez, with Barack's grandma as veep? I could vote for that ticket.

Jerry and Golden Oldie - Where does it say that Barack solicited money from PACs and lobbyists in this '08 run? Just because you set up a finance committee doesn't mean you solicit money from PACs and lobbyists. Also, I don't think his ducking questions was with impunity. I think Marin is going after him if only because he does try to duck questions, like any other politician. I do agree that is what he is. I'm not sure he is pretending to be anything other than a politician.

Some of these comments are just unbelievably ignorant. Obama didn't lie when he said he didn't take federally registered lobbyist money in this campaign. Rezko's donations were from his Senate campaign. As he's gotten better known and risen politically, his campaigns have gotten more and more financed by regular folks like you and me and he has had to rely less and less on the lobbyists and regulators -- making him more and more solely accountable to US. This is both politically idealistic and reasonable as it became possible.

To those who claim he threw his grandma under the bus, they fail to realize he did just the exact opposite! He disowned the reverend's worst statements and cringed at his grandma's words, but still embraced their better natures. We are all, ALL, full of contradictions, good and bad. Yet we all make up America and have more in common than these silly diversions that divide us. If you'd rather be distracted by that which divides us and prevents us from uniting to achieve common goals, so be it. But recognize how you're being played by the dividers.

Golden Oldie, one needs more than just a few decades of life experience to comment knowledgeably on the political goings-on this election cycle. I appreciate your input. I wish others blogging had more experience and less youthful zeal.

It is amusing to read the combatting posts on whose candidate is the best for America. CHANGE for the U.S. is not going to come from either one of the candidates on the Democratic menu this year. It is not going to come from the Republican side either. If you want real change and real movement in D.C. it is going to take constitutional amendments and real poilitical reform. That will never happen as long as people walk in lockstep with their perceived savior partys. Alas, there are too many drones out there that don't question or know the questions to ask. Quit letting the media tell you what to think and who to vote for.

Why is it hard for some of you to understand Obama is releasing information he DOESN'T have to release. He isn't taking money from lobbyist and no other candidate has released this information. This is called transparency. He is doing what other candidates won't do and that's letting the American people know exactly what is going on.

Independent woman--if you are REALLY independent (I am, although I will not vote for the Republican war party) then you would realize that nobody (or at least I didn't) accuse Sen. Obama of SOLICITING pac monies. However, if you look at the PATTERN of the bundling, which is something the donorpedia project did (and it's just out today, folks)http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/
it becomes obvious that NEITHER Hilary nor Barack can claim, unlike John Edwards, to NOT have received lobbyist funds.
It just ain't so. What's relevant about it is that Barack keeps trying to denounce Hilary for having received the same funds He's received.
As for keeping score--that's not accurate either.
Hilary, by virtue of the records released about her day to day doings has perhaps revealed more than Barack. But who really cares about that anyway? That's some boy scout merit badge mentality of 'news headline' fodder that matters not one whit to most Americans, whose key issues (I think) oughta be:
HOW DO WE GET OUT OF THIS STUPID 3 BILLION A WEEK 'WAR' THAT IS BANKRUPTING OUR PRESENT AND DAMNING OUR FUTURE?
Barack's on a beach in the virgin islands! Hilary's spouting nonsense about Bosnia in (wait for it) Pennsylvania!
Maybe Punxatawney Phil will put on a bathing suit and head into the House and Senate and get some sort of omnibus bill going to stop the war funding and stop funding Israel (4 billion a week) to pay for Hilary's 30 billion plan to shore up our communities with all the boarded up trashed houses the 30 somethings couldn't afford.
Over and out already.

Obama is like any other politician in Washington. He takes lobbyist money , straw donor and bundlers money. Big corporations UBS, General Dynamics, University of Chicago and such . They have there employees donate to the campaign in small amounts. He take money from lobbyist spouses, their children and business partners. Obama's earmarks for wife's employer Univ. Of Chicago Hospital and big donor neighbor CEO General Dynamics. One lie after another , eventually they all come home to roust.

I visited the website, but I'm mystified what you are talking about. Where is the information about bundling "patterns"? I thought Obama did not take federally registered lobbyist or PAC money, and that this was confirmed? If I understand correctly, there are loopholes, such as employees of law firms that sometimes perform lobbying for clients, but these are problems that any candidate, including Edwards, would have difficulty screening. When individuals donate, too, it gets listed as coming from a particular section. If I'm a nurse, my donations might be listed as coming from the health industry. It doesn't mean Big Pharma's funding him. So please explain the ethical conflict to me.